Cycling wrong way up one way street

[David Hansen]

On 03 Jun 2008 17:21:20 +0100 (BST) someone who may be
[email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-

>you could
>argue that someone on the pavement because he has lost control while on
>the road is no longer a driver).

Some do try and argue this. It is a bogus argument which the usual
suspects would not apply to someone in a similar group, for example
a cyclist who has lost control of their vehicle.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[®i©ardo]

Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>
>
> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing to
> generalise a bit more.
>
> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes of
> a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>
> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I do
> know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4 years
> or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>
> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
> only imaginary vigilante action.

You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
Here it is again:

"No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.

Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid personal injury, wish
to take action against said cyclist is up to the individual. Most
pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the course of action that
they take in attempting to avoid being harmed, they will more than
likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse from some moron who
thinks his actions are saving the planet.

If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are speeding."

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Daniel Barlow]

®i©ardo <[email protected]> writes:
> individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the
> course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being harmed,
> they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse
> from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the planet.

May be your experience, but clearly not a general one - round here,
for example, most of the pavement cyclists are teenage BMX hoodies who
are unlikely to give a **** about saving the planet.


-dan

 

[Nick]

®i©ardo wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing
>> to generalise a bit more.
>>
>> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes
>> of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
>> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
>> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>>
>> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
>> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
>> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
>> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I
>> do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4
>> years or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>>
>> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
>> only imaginary vigilante action.
>
> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
> Here it is again:
>

Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.

> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
> scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
> hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.
>

I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered it,
apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?

> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
> a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
> pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
> The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid personal injury, wish
> to take action against said cyclist is up to the individual. Most
> pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the course of action that
> they take in attempting to avoid being harmed, they will more than
> likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse from some moron who
> thinks his actions are saving the planet.
>
> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
> throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
> speeding."

I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful discussion.
You know something along the lines of why you need to stress that a car
is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion" but a cyclist riding
on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute terms rather than just
in the "pedestrian's opinion".

 

[®i©ardo]

Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the
>>>>>> tapestry than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is
>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>>>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing
>>> to generalise a bit more.
>>>
>>> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes
>>> of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
>>> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action
>>> extended to other law breakers in similar situations.
>>>
>>> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
>>> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
>>> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by
>>> being hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop?
>>> Yes I do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian
>>> every 4 years or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>>>
>>> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky
>>> its only imaginary vigilante action.
>>
>> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
>> Here it is again:
>>
>
> Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.
>
>> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
>> scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
>> hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.
>>
>
> I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered it,
> apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
> non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?
>
>> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when
>> leaving a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally
>> riding on the pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a
>> similar exercise. The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid
>> personal injury, wish to take action against said cyclist is up to the
>> individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the
>> course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being harmed,
>> they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse
>> from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the planet.
>>
>> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
>> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
>> throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
>> speeding."
>
> I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
> situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful discussion.
> You know something along the lines of why you need to stress that a car
> is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion" but a cyclist riding
> on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute terms rather than just
> in the "pedestrian's opinion".

The simple answer is that a cyclist riding his machine on the pavement,
in the absence of a designated cycle lane or facility, is obviously
treating the law with total contempt, and is is patently obvious that
this is so. It is likely that a speeding motorist is showing a similar
contempt of the law if they are speeding, but *you*, unlike with the
cycling situation, cannot be absolutely sure whether a car is doing 3 -
5mph over the speed limit, or is speeding at all, based solely upon the
evidence of your jaundiced eye.

Let him who is without sin cast the first rock.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:09:28 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
>a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
>pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.

But far more likely, statistically, to be killed by a car on said
pavement than by a bike.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[[email protected]]

On 28 May, 15:57, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > TimB <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> >> "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
> >> footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May.
>
> >> I am pleased to see
> >> that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not
> >> appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training
> >> of safe cycling, safety before speed.
>
> > <rolls eyes>
> > "They weren't speeding, so they must have been safe..."
>
> Well it is the speed that normally causes the danger. What do you think
> the danger from officers riding at a leisurely pace comes from?

A Start of Motorway sign means No Entry to cyclists but it didn't
stop
2 of them being on the A57(M) westbound between the A5103 and A56.
One
of them showed me his warrant card and it seemed to be his normal
route home! I was aquainted with someone from the local police
driving
school at the time and told him what I'd seen - I've not seen another
cyclist on that stretch of road since.

 

[Nick]

®i©ardo wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the
>>>>>>> tapestry than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is
>>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars
>>>>>> too?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>>>>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be
>>>> willing to generalise a bit more.
>>>>
>>>> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes
>>>> of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I
>>>> had wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action
>>>> extended to other law breakers in similar situations.
>>>>
>>>> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know
>>>> that motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I
>>>> can't remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed
>>>> by being hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a
>>>> shop? Yes I do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a
>>>> pedestrian every 4 years or so but I can't remember it happening
>>>> outside a shop.
>>>>
>>>> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky
>>>> its only imaginary vigilante action.
>>>
>>> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
>>> Here it is again:
>>>
>>
>> Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.
>>
>>> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
>>> scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
>>> hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.
>>>
>>
>> I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered
>> it, apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
>> non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?
>>
>>> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when
>>> leaving a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally
>>> riding on the pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a
>>> similar exercise. The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid
>>> personal injury, wish to take action against said cyclist is up to
>>> the individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the
>>> course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being harmed,
>>> they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob full of
>>> abuse from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the planet.
>>>
>>> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
>>> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified
>>> to throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
>>> speeding."
>>
>> I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
>> situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful
>> discussion. You know something along the lines of why you need to
>> stress that a car is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion"
>> but a cyclist riding on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute
>> terms rather than just in the "pedestrian's opinion".
>
> The simple answer is that a cyclist riding his machine on the pavement,
> in the absence of a designated cycle lane or facility, is obviously
> treating the law with total contempt, and is is patently obvious that
> this is so. It is likely that a speeding motorist is showing a similar
> contempt of the law if they are speeding, but *you*, unlike with the
> cycling situation, cannot be absolutely sure whether a car is doing 3 -
> 5mph over the speed limit, or is speeding at all, based solely upon the
> evidence of your jaundiced eye.
>

There are many ways I can be sure. In a road near my house they have a
sign that shows car speeds, it is accurate. It was put up after the
second kid was run down and killed within a year. When I'm on my bike
going 30mph and cars overtake, often dangerously, I know they are
speeding. There are many ways to reliably tell if a car is speeding.
This is just more evasion.

Why not just answer the question rather than find some trivial excuse.


> Let him who is without sin cast the first rock.
>

?

 

[®i©ardo]

Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>> Nick wrote:
>>>>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the
>>>>>>>> tapestry than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is
>>>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars
>>>>>>> too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst
>>>>>> I was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be
>>>>> willing to generalise a bit more.
>>>>>
>>>>> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the
>>>>> spokes of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the
>>>>> pavement. I had wanted to know if this acceptability of violent
>>>>> direct action extended to other law breakers in similar situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know
>>>>> that motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I
>>>>> can't remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed
>>>>> by being hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a
>>>>> shop? Yes I do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a
>>>>> pedestrian every 4 years or so but I can't remember it happening
>>>>> outside a shop.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky
>>>>> its only imaginary vigilante action.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
>>>> Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.
>>>
>>>> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a
>>>> specific scenario, although you decided to expand things by
>>>> including *your* hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a
>>>> non-comparative situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered
>>> it, apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
>>> non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?
>>>
>>>> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when
>>>> leaving a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally
>>>> riding on the pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a
>>>> similar exercise. The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid
>>>> personal injury, wish to take action against said cyclist is up to
>>>> the individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of
>>>> the course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being
>>>> harmed, they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob
>>>> full of abuse from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the
>>>> planet.
>>>>
>>>> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
>>>> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified
>>>> to throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
>>>> speeding."
>>>
>>> I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
>>> situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful
>>> discussion. You know something along the lines of why you need to
>>> stress that a car is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion"
>>> but a cyclist riding on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute
>>> terms rather than just in the "pedestrian's opinion".
>>
>> The simple answer is that a cyclist riding his machine on the
>> pavement, in the absence of a designated cycle lane or facility, is
>> obviously treating the law with total contempt, and is is patently
>> obvious that this is so. It is likely that a speeding motorist is
>> showing a similar contempt of the law if they are speeding, but *you*,
>> unlike with the cycling situation, cannot be absolutely sure whether a
>> car is doing 3 - 5mph over the speed limit, or is speeding at all,
>> based solely upon the evidence of your jaundiced eye.
>>
>
> There are many ways I can be sure. In a road near my house they have a
> sign that shows car speeds, it is accurate. It was put up after the
> second kid was run down and killed within a year. When I'm on my bike
> going 30mph and cars overtake, often dangerously, I know they are
> speeding. There are many ways to reliably tell if a car is speeding.
> This is just more evasion.
>
> Why not just answer the question rather than find some trivial excuse.
>
>
>> Let him who is without sin cast the first rock.
>>
>
> ?

You must have a very full life watching that sign light up.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Mark]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:09:28 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> wrote:

[ cross posting removed ]

>Nick wrote:
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing to
>> generalise a bit more.
>>
>> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes of
>> a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
>> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
>> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>>
>> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
>> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
>> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
>> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I do
>> know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4 years
>> or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>>
>> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
>> only imaginary vigilante action.
>
>You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
>Here it is again:
>
>"No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
>scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
>hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.
>
>Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
>a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
>pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
>The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid personal injury, wish
>to take action against said cyclist is up to the individual. Most
>pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the course of action that
>they take in attempting to avoid being harmed, they will more than
>likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse from some moron who
>thinks his actions are saving the planet.

As I wrote before - you are more likely to be killed or injuried by a
motor vehicle driving on the pavement than by a cycle. Why is the
motorist than pulls up to park his/her car on the pavement causing
school children to scatter into the road any better than a similar
situation with a cyclist?

And you are just as likely to get abuse for a driver. When I
remonstrated with a driver who had nearly run over my 6 year old son
when parking his car on the pavement, he wasn't polite.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Nick]

®i©ardo wrote:

>>> Let him who is without sin cast the first rock.
>>>
>>
>> ?
>
> You must have a very full life watching that sign light up.
>
If you didn't have any serious arguments why did you nag me for a
response to your post?

 

[JNugent]

Nick wrote:

> ®i©ardo wrote:

[ ... ]

> I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered it,
> apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
> non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?

>> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when
>> leaving a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally
>> riding on the pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a
>> similar exercise. The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid
>> personal injury, wish to take action against said cyclist is up to the
>> individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the
>> course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being harmed,
>> they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse
>> from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the planet.

>> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
>> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
>> throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
>> speeding."

> I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
> situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful discussion.
> You know something along the lines of why you need to stress that a car
> is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion" but a cyclist riding
> on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute terms rather than just
> in the "pedestrian's opinion".

This comes up repeatedly.

Cycling or driving along the footway is an offence, regardless of speed
(let's not start on the usual red-herring of so called "shared use"
routes). If a cyclist is cycling along the footway outside my house, or
outside the village shops, he's selfishly committing a particularly
anti-social offence. Full stop. Opinion doesn't come into it. No-one
needs any equipment except the Mk I Eyeball to see and understand the
offence.

Driving/riding along the carriageway (assuming all docs, etc, are in
order and that all other regulations are being complied with) is only an
offence if the speed is in excess of the local limit. An observer not
equipped with the appropriate measuring equipment can do do no more than
form an opinion about the speed. The opinion is worthless as a measuring
device.

 

[JNugent]

Nick wrote:

> In a road near my house they have a
> sign that shows car speeds, it is accurate. It was put up after the
> second kid was run down and killed within a year. When I'm on my bike
> going 30mph and cars overtake, often dangerously, I know they are
> speeding. There are many ways to reliably tell if a car is speeding.

Cite another one (that is available to you).

Why not ask the police to enforce the law for a few days (with a
hand-held radar set or similar)? It usually works.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick says...

> There are many ways I can be sure. In a road near my house they have a
> sign that shows car speeds, it is accurate.

How do you know? There's one in Pontesbury that's at least 7% out,
showing 32MPH when the lorry speedo is showing 30MPH and that's with
several different lorries.

> When I'm on my bike
> going 30mph and cars overtake, often dangerously, I know they are
> speeding. There are many ways to reliably tell if a car is speeding.

What are these ways to tell?

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

 

[JNugent]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick says...
>
>> There are many ways I can be sure. In a road near my house they have a
>> sign that shows car speeds, it is accurate.
>
> How do you know? There's one in Pontesbury that's at least 7% out,
> showing 32MPH when the lorry speedo is showing 30MPH and that's with
> several different lorries.
>
>> When I'm on my bike
>> going 30mph and cars overtake, often dangerously, I know they are
>> speeding. There are many ways to reliably tell if a car is speeding.
>
> What are these ways to tell?

Yes, I too would like an answer to that.